Some texture in nature this time. A shot of some grasses which caught my eye …
[EXIF: 1/50sec @ f/8; ISO 400; Sony ILCE-7R;Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA]
… and then the contrast between hard, straight trees and the leafy ground (with rather nice shadows too) …
[EXIF: 1/100sec @ f/9; ISO 400; Sony ILCE-7R; Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA]
… and of course, there had to be autumn leaves and colours.
[EXIF: 1/200sec @ f/4; ISO 200; Sony ILCE-7R; Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS]
Photos don’t always have to be pretty of course, David, but I prefer these, particularly the leaves, to the one in Textures-2.
Being a self-confessed pedant though, I am going to pick you up on your statement that they show ‘texture in nature’. An individual blade of grass, or tree trunk, will have texture, but not a crowd of them, I suggest. Texture for me is something I can feel with my fingers.
You sent me scurrying to definitions of texture, and I’m happy to agree with you – you are a self-confessed pedant! 🙂
Lots of examples of texture in nature, and lots of examples where the term texture is applied to a collection of like objects, or dissimilar objects that together give different textural representation. So, we’ll agree to disagree on this one – you can show texture in nature, and these shots, though not fantastic, attempt to do that I feel.
Re Jim’s comment. To my way of thinking, if you can SEE texture then there IS texture, not just if you can feel it. Otherwise what is the point of having “texture” as a photographic subject? Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons!
Glad to gave an ally. You’re right of course 🙂
It stands to reason, Yvonne. If you can’t see the texture you feel, then you can’t photograph it.
Hi Yvonne. It seems to me that if you think you are looking at texture, but when you touch the object you can’t feel it, then what you are looking at is a pattern of some sort, not a texture. Both can be subjects for photographs of course.
Leave a Reply